Printable View
Yes these are the very fellows I meant who used or abused his philosophy for their own ends but I think he remains interesting despite that. Maybe oddly that gives a kind of grim glamour to his ideas. I cant answer the last question but it is these problematic areas in his ideas which various political 'thinkers' were drawn towards.
It sounds like an attempt to question the notion of power. I can't help feeling that his description of the desire to rule as 'weak' does a pretty good job of anticipating Hitler. It's a bit like a more sophisticated version of the mother who tells her bullied child that the kid who's bullying him is probably only doing it because he's scared of something himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
You know it has been a long time since I have given any thought to these things. I had in my college years studied a school of psychology call existential phenomenology. So Nietzsche, Hume and others were talked about much. I am thinking that these statements drive back into the idea of passion. Slaves are those who lack or who weakly exhibit the Dionysian energy.
Virgil you will hate this... back in the day, I couldn't help but think of "use the force Luke" when considering the "will to power" less midiclorians in our less passionate fellow humans. How is that for French fry philosophy?:lol:
Oh yes, i have heard of this. It is rather sad I think too, gives Nietzsche a bad name. Ironically, Nazis tried to suppress the more free, natural behaviour and thinking where as Nietzsche promoted the Dionysian lifestyle.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
:lol: I suspect that Nietzsche would have liked Dark Vador more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orionsbelt
I don't know who it was in this thread that called Nietzsche arrogant, but there is a tremendous hubris to divide people into weak or slave versuses master. I take it he considers himself on the master side. I am failing to really see what is so important about Nietzsche. Did he have an once of compassion for people or the totality of humanity? Everyone says he's been misinterpreted. While I think it is a stretch to assume he would have supported Nazism, I can see how corrolaries to his positions can lead to Nazism. Let me put it this way: his ethics (and I admit I have not read directly his works, but summarized passages) don't preclude Nazism. It doesn't rule it out.
Let us remember Nietzsche was long before the day of Nazism and would have no direct way of supporting it anyway. His works can, like many other pieces, be interpreted in many ways and obviously the Nazis had their own interpretation like everyone else. But when you look at many of his other ideas, such as Dionysian energy, they really don't fit with Nazi ideology.
What I have been meaning to bring up for a while is a fascinating event in Nietzsche's life, when he hallucinated the horse beating scene out of Crime and Punishment when he went mad. Does anyone have thoughts as to how this connects with his philosophy?
Perhaps, since Nietzsche believed everything but passion was basically a product of our minds, he felt as if it were possible to share memories, even with a fictional character? I do not know, it's a tricky one.
I've read most of Nietzsche's work and I have to say that I favor his ideas over all others (you can probably tell my member name).
If you guys think Nietzsche is arrogant, go take a look at Socrates. The guy knowingly knew his philosophy was flawed and he still continued to preach it like he was some sort of God. I respect Plato (mainly because of the republic), but not Socrates (especially after I learned that Socrates' last words were "life is an illness").
This commentary presupposes that there is such a thing as "unflawed" philosophy. Considering the disagreement among philosophers, I doubt such a thing exists (meaning that all branches of philosophy would universally agree on some specific philosophic perspective as "unflawed").Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Secondly, would you kindly provide some proof as to your statement that Socrates "knew" his philosophy was flawed? I'm not sure how Socratic questioning and Socratic irony (his two primary techniques) are "flawed." And, since Socrates' words only exist through the "filter" of Plato's pen, how can you dismiss one (who did not recored his own words for us) and like the other (who venerated Socrates, but nonetheless used him as a personal "mouthpiece")? We can only assume that what Socrates says is uniquely his own - authorial agendas might very well be embedded in Socrates' dialogues.
There is no right or wrong philosophy, you're right. Socrates famous quote before he dies proves that he knew his philosophy was wrong and that life is an illness (contradicting his own philosophy). Read this:
"With respect to this strange phenomenon of Nietzsche not only inserting his own words into the mouths of famous figures, but drawing conclusions about those figures based upon those words, we may note that he performs a similar piece of ventriloquy in the case of the dying Socrates. In that section of the Twilight of the Idols (1888) titled The Problem of Socrates, Nietzsche twice compels his Socrates to verbalise the unspoken sentiment traditionally ascribed to his life-culminating Phaedo reference to owing a c0ck (it means rooster but this forum blocks the word ****)to Asclepius. Writes Nietzsche:
Even Socrates said as he died: “To live - that means to be a long time sick: I owe a **** to the saviour Asclepius”. Even Socrates had had enough of it (1).
“Socrates is no physician,” he said softly to himself: “death alone is a physician here... Socrates himself has only been a long time sick” (12).
Since the tradition was to offer a **** to Asclepius, Greek god of medicine and healing, upon recovering from an illness, Socrates’ famous remark in Plato’s Phaedo (118a) has long been understood by scholars as suggesting a) that earthly existence is, or Socrates’ earthly life has been, an illness, and/or b) that death is the cure for the illness of life. While I will return to the sombre and suggestive conclusion that “Even Socrates had had enough of it” below, I now note that the actual words Nietzsche adds to Plato’s account of Socrates’ death-bed speech are broadly in keeping with the familiar life-as-illness, death-as-cure understanding of this famous scene, and accordingly, do little to alter the conventional interpretation of the passage in question."
-http://www.ul.ie/~philos/vol10/Jesus.html
Nothing you have said do I have an objection to except: seeing life as "illess" is a comment about life, not about Socrates' philosophy. What exactly do you take Socrates' philosophy to be?
Everyone's philosophy is "flawed" borean. Very few people out there who promote their beliefs and ideas consider them to be absolute perfection, just maybe less flawed then the alternatives. All these philisophy pioneers and idols have a bit of a big head anyway, you need a good ego to fall back on when your works are so controversial.
I'll agree with that.
The thing is...Socrates never admitted he had flaws in his philosophy. He preached it as if it was absolute and perfect. His last quote before he died proved that on the inside he knew there were majors holes in his philosophy; holes that debunked his entire metaphysics. (I'm sure you guys already know about aristocratic philosophy and Socrates' "souls").
Sartre I believe admitted that existentialism was wrong before he died (not to say existentialism is entirely wrong. many existential ideas are great but in the whole grand scheme of things, living by the philosophy just doesn't work out).
Nietzsche admitted that "eternal recurrence" isn't scientifically proven, but it's good to live by for it increases the will to power.